Krugman dispatches Sanders

What I think has happened here is that Sanders decided that he might actually win the nomination and went negative — “unqualified!” (an absurd, even insulting, and arguably sexist, claim on its face, but more to the point, if true, why wait until now to make it) — to try to close the deal. A bad choice, I’d say. First, he probably won’t win the nomination no matter what he does because Clinton has the lead and will probably do well in the states with the most delegates. Second, he has such significant weaknesses himself — some of which Barney Frank and Paul Krugman have explained — that any effort to bring the campaign down will wind up hurting him more than his rival. A better strategy would have been to try to keep riding the kindly Vermont grandfather wave and hope to beat expectations in New York, California and the other big prizes. NYT:

But in any case, the way Mr. Sanders is now campaigning raises serious character and values issues.

It’s one thing for the Sanders campaign to point to Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street connections, which are real, although the question should be whether they have distorted her positions, a case the campaign has never even tried to make. But recent attacks on Mrs. Clinton as a tool of the fossil fuel industry are just plain dishonest, and speak of a campaign that has lost its ethical moorings.

And then there was Wednesday’s rant about how Mrs. Clinton is not “qualified” to be president.

What probably set that off was a recent interview of Mr. Sanders by The Daily News, in which he repeatedly seemed unable to respond when pressed to go beyond his usual slogans. Mrs. Clinton, asked about that interview, was careful in her choice of words, suggesting that “he hadn’t done his homework.”

But Mr. Sanders wasn’t careful at all, declaring that what he considers Mrs. Clinton’s past sins, including her support for trade agreements and her vote to authorize the Iraq war — for which she has apologized — make her totally unfit for office.

This is really bad, on two levels. Holding people accountable for their past is O.K., but imposing a standard of purity, in which any compromise or misstep makes you the moral equivalent of the bad guys, isn’t. Abraham Lincoln didn’t meet that standard; neither did F.D.R. Nor, for that matter, has Bernie Sanders (think guns).

I disagree with Krugman, however, that this is bad for the Democrats. A fierce primary makes the eventual nominee stronger. But it is probably bad for Sanders.

That’s the way politicians play the game. I think Sanders knew what he was doing, and did it because he thought, after Wisconsin, that there was a real possibility of victory, and that it would help his campaign. I think it was unwise. As I said, “kindly grandfather talks sense” has broader appeal. But time will tell. As to the first line, my comment was referencing Barney Frank’s criticisms of Sanders last week: see the link.

He has gone from 3% nationally to going toe to toe with the Clinton dynasty and still hanging on. He is far more likely to be the Democratic nominee than ether Kasich or Cruz on their side of the aisle. He has outpolled Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas to become the socialist who has won the most votes for president in American history, and he has won millions of these votes within the Democratic primary which was once entirely cut off to a candidate with his views.

You and JohnK compare him to Kucinich, but that inconsistent wierdo never cracked above 1% in any primary and never has delegates by the time of the convention. No one, not even Dean or Obama has raised this much money directly from the grassroots without relying on a single corporate dollar.

There is no reason for Democrats to accept corporate money in the future when Bernie has shown them a very viable alternative. He has brought millions of young people into the political process for the first time who will be future leaders and policymakers and he has single handedly revived the populist spirit the Democratic Party has to harness to win this election. Considering most of you thought he would be out by New Hampshire, it’s pretty darn impressive how far he has come.

He has come this far as a kindly Vermont grandfather who talks sense. Plus, he is a sitting Senator. He didn’t get this far by calling the former Secretary of State and New York Senator unqualified to be president. In fact, to the contrary, prior to this week he has been complimentary toward her (I think, before he thought he might win). Separately, I didn’t compare him to Kucinich.

Emersons most recent NY poll shows him cutting her lead in half. Granted, I have no idea if it’s accurate but it seemed that the Wisconsin surge so many here dismissed, myself included, ended up being accurate. This is the small ball name calling most voters are too sophisticated to get worked up over.

It’s certainly a gaffe, but it’s not on the level of say accepting money from the least popular people in America or going for the least popular war this century. Or having your husband contradict your own apology and demean black lives matter activists by telling them to focus on Africa instead of African Americans. That happened this week too.

Step One: When asked it Bernie is qualified to be president, Hillary replies ““I think he hadn’t done his homework and he’d been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn’t really studied or understood, and that does raise a lot of questions,”

Step Three: Wait until Bernie replies that he doubts that Hillary is qualified.

Step Four: Use corporate media to ask you if you think that Bernie is qualified and laugh it off, refuse to answer.

Step Five: Use corporate media pals to line up your supporters to somehow twist Bernie’s remarks into “Hillary is not qualified because she is a woman” and to let media point to recent interview where you did not come out and question his qualifications (as you did earlier)

Hillary trolled Bernie. I think that’s an apt description. In fact, it’s Politics 101. You try to make your opponent do or say something detrimental to their candidacy. Squint and the Meat Puppet, as Pierce calls them, ask these questions as a matter of course. This is the kind of stupid crap the media does. As Josh Marshall writes,

” The Post published a story that put together various Clinton interviews and recent statements and summed it up as ‘Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be President.’ As I said last night, I’m willing to believe, actually assume that Sanders was told the story was true. But the fact is that it wasn’t….

Various things Clinton said can be reasonably interpreted as questioning whether Sanders is up to the job of the presidency. But it is an entirely different matter when an opponent, in his own voice, says flatly his challenger is “unqualified” to serve as President of the country. That’s something that cannot be unsaid. If Clinton is the nominee, it will undoubtedly be a staples of GOP stump speeches in the Fall. These are simple realities of political campaigns…

Marshall blames Jeffrey Weaver, who went medieval on the Squint and the Meat Puppet:

I’ve increasingly had the sense that Weaver is a, maybe the key source of toxicity and cynicism in the Sanders camp, and I suspect doesn’t care terribly about the November election if Sanders isn’t the standard bearer.

The Clintons assume most Americans will loathe the Republicans more than most Sanders supporters loathe them. It’s a safe assumption, albeit one that is a depressing commentary on the state of our politics. I’ve seen many progressives I respect engage in red baiting against Sanders or waive away foreign policies from Hillary they would be protesting in the streets if conducted by a Republican. I’ve seen many others engage in sexist attacks against Clinton or regurgitate disproven right wing conspiracy theories.

Maybe it’s because I’m eight years older or far more disengaged from presidential politics than I was in 2008, but these last three weeks here have been quite dispiriting. 2008 was worse and I was a pretty awful Obama partisan then, but it all just seems more pointless this time around. If the incumbents woes are any indicator, neither will be able to deliver on any of their promises so why does it really matter who’s specifics are right? Both have been far more detail oriented and inclusive than any Republican.

…unless you believe elections are literally rigged at the vote-counting stage, wouldn’t amount to a hill of beans if all qualified individuals voted as a matter of routine. People who deliberately abstain because they don’t like the system have essentially voted to let the system win.

…who have stayed away from politics because they believe it’s all a rigged game anyway. This does not help. It also lowers turnout.

… the game is absolutely rigged to push down turnout. The ‘young voter and independents’ are absolutely complicit in the rigging. If it wasn’t so easy to rig it in this manner — if the ‘young and the independents’ had a little more backbone and a little less entitlement — then the outcome would be different… perhaps even more to the liking of the ‘young and the independents’.

Your step 1 is accurate, but she went on to say it’s for the voters to judge qualifications. I have only heard about step 2 from Sanders campaign’s victim-playing emails, which they’ve gotten good at. She has also said she’d take Sanders over Trump and Cruz, which is hardly surprising, but I mention just to keep things in perspective.

She said “““I think he hadn’t done his homework and he’d been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn’t really studied or understood, and that does raise a lot of questions,” so yes, she did not use the words “Not qualified” but a five year old could see that what she said clearly implied the same thing. This is the kind of bullshit that the younger voters and independents are sick of and why they will not turn out for her in November.

It IS possible to raise questions about preparedness without the more blanket statement of unqualified. Plus she specifically DECLINED to call him unqualified. Sanders has also said that of course HRC is qualified after his litany the other day. Let’s follow the examples of our candidates and rise above the petty bickering.

> It IS possible to raise questions about preparedness without the more blanket statement of unqualified

So why did she not say that? Why did she not follow it with, but of course he is qualified? Yes, she specifically declined AFTER the trap was set and she had her cronies in the media lined up. Just more of the same. Just like with the transcripts.

First time asked about it: Laugh it off, ignore.
Second time: Say you will look into it.
Third time: Say you will only be as transparent as Republicans.

When asked about the $675,000.

Reply that “It’s what they offered”, as if to imply that this was their request, not hers. Only problems is that those of us who do our research discovered that $225,000 per speech was the official lowest rate published by her campaign. So, yes, it was what they offered, but it was more accurately, what she requested at minimum.

So spare us the idea that she did not mean to question his qualifications and start this.

The record shows a history of calculated moves, innuendo, and half truths.

What he have here is a 48-hour mini-spat that both candidates have since put behind them. Your harping on transcripts is also petty. WHO CARES!? She was a private citizen. She spoke; she got paid handsomely for it, and yes, probably with input from both sides regarding the amount. The record shows a history of trying to play gotcha and making mountains out of molehills. Nothing to see here – move along.

Goldman Sachs, one of the most powerful investment banks on Wall Street, agreed on Monday to pay $5.06 billion to settle allegations that it sold packages of shoddy mortgages to investors during the period leading up to the financial crisis.
But, similar to other massive settlements reached with large banks over the last few years, no individual bank employee is being held responsible for the alleged bad behavior that led to the settlement.

Further, laws (no doubt written by the lobbyists) will allow Goldman Sachs to reduce its bill substantially through a combination of government incentives and tax credits.

How much did Goldman Sachs rake in so that paying $5.1 Billion is “chump change’ and simply “the cost of doing business?”

So no one admits wrongdoing, no individual is feeling any monetary loss, no one goes to jail, the performance bonuses keep rolling, and the company can easily afford $225,000 for a “speech”, hell, they can do this all day long, and why not? If Democrats don’t care, well, it’s easy money.

…to prove she had anything to do with this or that her compensation bought her support/silence. I care about what Golden Sachs has done, but I don’t care anymore about Clinton’s damn speeches than your candidate does about her damn emails.

Like it or not, “calculated moves”, “innuendo”, and “half truths” is what politics and governance IS at the top — however you want to define “is”. Like it or not, the Clinton campaign is VERY good at it, and the Sanders campaign is not.

I note that of all the GOP strengths, “calculated moves”, “innuendo”, and “half truths” is their core competence — in campaigning, and even more so in government (see, for example, their successful nationwide “voter ID” initiative). Of all the players in the current campaign from all the parties, Mr. Sanders is least effective at handling this aspect of politics. At the national level, that is a major weakness whether or not we like it in our leaders.

This exchange demonstrates the clumsiness (at best) of the Sander’s campaign. We can still hope this is a failing of campaign staff, ultimately corrected by Mr. Sanders himself, rather than an insight into the state of mind of Mr. Sanders. Your churlish attacks on Ms. Clinton exemplify what the Sanders campaign must leave behind.

Such commentary alienates far more people then it attracts, and signals desperation. People who are not desperate don’t act this way.

I agree with most of that, but if the Clinton campaign is showing off to be a high performing “big leagues” team, that’s worrisome. They may have got the better of the Sanders campaign in this likely soon to be forgotten spat, but this primary has not demonstrated much strength in the Clinton campaign. They’ve been losing huge amounts of ground and are being vastly outraised by a guy who should have won his home state and maybe a couple small caucus states at best. Just barely holding on to a monumentally large lead to win a primary does not give me a lot of confidence for the general.

Related to that, while Sanders has turned up the attacks, he’s also been winning more states and doing better in national polling. A lot of us have thought that after 30 years of attacks (about 90% of which are utter bullshit from the right), Clinton has hit her floor and attacks can only have limited effect. Are these pretty mild attacks having significant impact? Is there room for her negatives to go up? If so, yikes!

I admire candidates who have a prayer of actually accomplishing SOMETHING if elected. I am confident that ANY nominee from the GOP will play a MUCH tougher game than Ms. Clinton is playing. This episode demonstrates, to me, the ineptness of the Sanders campaign and its supporters at handling the routine pop flies and soft grounders that are part of EVERY game.

I began this election season, months ago, being a supporter of Mr. Sanders. I turned to Ms. Clinton after the very first debate, when it was clear as day to me that she was the only president on the stage (and there were many more candidates then).

ALL of the bluster and exchanges since that first debate have, for me, reinforced that perception.

Sanders himself walked back his criticism of Clinton as being “unqualified.”

If this rather tame back-and-forth is the type of “bullshit” that younger voters and independents are sick of and won’t turnout to defeat the Republicans in November, there are a lot of “progressives” with ridiculously thin skins and/or don’t actually care about progressive ideals. That would be sad.

The larger point: do people not see what’s happening on the Republican side? It’s all-out warfare among conservatives, and they are seriously on the verge of nominating a complete wacko — either Trump or Cruz. It’s perfectly cool to think that either Bernie or Hillary is the best option for November. I’m sure you really believe in your candidate, and more power to you.

But please, people, let’s start getting real here. There’s bigger issues at stake than whether one candidate offended another’s ego. Like whether you think America is destined for the toilet, or whether you think it’s still open for progressive improvement.

Yes, we need a Democrat in the White House and we all know that our best option is Bernie.

Yes, we see what is happening in the GOP. We saw as a “brand name political figure” with oodles of cash and super pacs, a political insider whose own relative was president ran against Trump. He lost. Never made it past the Carolina’s. And so now Democrats want to run a “brand name political figure” with oodles of cash and super pacs, a political insider whose own relative was president against Trump and win?

Is that really what your argument comes down to? I shut down first graders pretty quickly when they whine to me along those lines. Certainly adults can do better! In case you hadn’t noticed, while Bush didn’t get very far, Clinton is not only still in the race, but beating Trump in most key polls. Plus, there has been no mud to speak of on the Dem side this year, so I think a slightly thicker skin would be in order.

My point is his existing positive campaign was working well for him: he’s had impressive success since primary voting started. That’s not ageist, it’s laudatory. Going negative is, I think, a mistake. As to the facts, he has seven grandchildren, is from Vermont, and presents himself as a kind person in many ways. Clinton, of course, is also a grandparent.

If you said the equivalent about HRC, people would be screaming about ageism and sexism.

I have known Sanders since his days as Mayor. He is not “kindly.” He is fun but he has a real sharp edge. I doubt you will find more than a few BMGers who think of him as “kindly,” any more than you would find BMGers who think HRC is “kindly.” It is a demeaning way to dismiss an older person. Say it to my face and you will end up on the floor.

Clearly, the point was not taken. You insult all older Americans when you dismiss someone with gray hair as “kindly.” And this is not a subject that gets decided by a Presidential primary vote. Ageism is ageism. Guilty.

I have some gray hair, for Pete’s sake. 🙂 I was not trying to disparage Bernie Sanders’ age or ability in any way with my characterization of his campaign. Indeed, as noted above, I was praising it. Nor do I think he is too old to be president, or that older people should be dismissed, or that grandparents do not have good judgment, or however else you took my comment. My point was that Sanders, in my opinion, should have kept on running his campaign the way he was prior to this week — essentially positive — rather than, as I see it, and more to the point as Krugman sees it, going negative. No ageism here, just political criticism, OK?

I’m with you that ageism should not be tolerated. But I think it says more about you than it does about Bob when you take umbrage at his description of Sen. Sanders as “kindly.” I would hope that we would all aspire to be described as such … even if/especially if, like me, we’re not yet fully deserving of the compliment.

Your use of language is not necessarily universal. Your definition of what constitutes “BS” is similarly not necessarily universal. I suspect that many of us have already noted your “low, very low tolerance level for BS”. These are all your own and are not necessarily shared.

Some of us use “kindly” all the time, and do not do so dismissively. Many of us are quite sensitive to “issues around age” and nevertheless see nothing objectionable in the phrase you object to. Some of us notice that you seem far more eager to “defend” the women of our community than the men, and far more eager to attack the men than the women — enough to wonder about how aware you are of your own biases and prejudices (we all have them).

I, frankly, have a “low, very low tolerance” level for commentary that is so frequently filled with hostility, vitriol, and personal invective. For example, as a case in point that even YOU have mentioned elsewhere, the editor’s name is “Bob Neer”. When you address him directly as “Neer”, it conveys a disrespect that you yourself have noted.

There is no disrespect in calling him Neer, any more than I feel it when someone refers to me as TBD or I refer to you as STom. It is shorthand to cut out the extra typing but I make certain that the person I am addressing is unmistakeable. As I explained a few weeks ago, I refer to HRC, not Hillary; to Sanders and not Bernie; to Porcu, not Porcupine. I don’t use first names because I do not know how many Toms, Jims or Daves there are here.

As to your comment on gender, I have no idea about the gender of most of the people who post here unless their nom de plume makes it obvious. I don’t know the gender of trickle-up or sabutai for example. But of course your comment is completely off base since this thread has nothing to do with gender, just another of your distractions.

People who are serious about politics, professionals, can argue without getting personal. They can dislike each other and still work together. They try not to take things personally, even though they fight.

I watched the interview. Joe Scarborough asked Hillery at least four times whether Sanders was qualified. He was clearly trying to split the Democrats, which is his wont.

Instead of simply saying that Sanders was qualified but hadn’t done his homework, Hillery knowing full well the implications, chose to avoid saying that Sanders was qualified. THAT is what caused this kerfuffle. They have both admitted the other is qualified, so with all due respect, get over it.